Pages

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The Moon is Harsh Mistress - Robert A. Heinlein

I am
slowly rereading some books that had a strong impression on me when I was very
young. I believe that I first, and last, read Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon
is a Harsh Mistress in the early 1980’s. This was another book that, while
I read so long ago, contains images and ideas that have stayed with me
throughout life. My take on this work now is that it is a very imaginative, innovative
and fun story. However, Heinlein presents a philosophy that, while thought
provoking, is very problematic

The
story takes place on the future Moon of the 2070’s. The Lunar colony has served
as Earth’s dumping ground for the unwanted. Criminals and political exiles are sent
there permanently. Due to physical changes brought about by the low lunar
gravity, both the exiles as well as their progeny are unable to return to Earth
for any longer than a few weeks, as an extended stay would be fatal. (Heinlein’s
book was first published in 1962. While acclamation to Earth’s gravity has
turned out to be a serious issue for long - term space travelers, it turns out
that the fatal effects predicted by Heinlein were overblown).

The Lunar
colonists, exiles, known as “Loonies”, work as ice miners and farmers, their
products are shipped to Earth, which has become dependent on Lunar grain
production. The Lunar authority runs the colony as a somewhat oppressive
dictatorship. However, while the Authority economically exploits the colonists
it generally does not interfere in people’s everyday lives.

We
are first introduced to our narrator, Manuel Garcia O'Kelly or “Manny”, a one
armed computer technician who from time to time is sent to repair the
supercomputer that runs much of Lunar Colony. During the course of the repairs
Manny begins to have conversations with the computer who calls himself “Mike”.
Mike, very powerful to begin with, has been constantly expanded and enhanced, as
he is needed to perform more and more tasks for the Colony. As a result,
unknown to anyone but Manny, he has achieved sentience. No cold or calculating
machine, Mike has a mischievous sense of humor, and is creative and lively. He quickly
becomes one of the most engaging characters in the story.

Manny
and Mike become involved in an underground resistance movement aimed at
overthrowing the Lunar Authority. The two are joined by several colorful
characters including Wyoming Knott-Davis or “Wyoh”, a woman who is an
impassioned revolutionary, as well as Professor Bernardo de la Paz or “Prof”, a
revolutionary intellectual who bears strong similarities to Benjamin Franklin.

With
the help of Mike’s amazing analytical and communication abilities, as well as
his control of lunar systems, the resistance begins to gain traction by
spreading its message, disrupting Lunar Authority operations and communications
as well as inciting riots and civil disturbances.

When
Lunar Authority security forces rape and murder a Loonie woman the colony explodes
into rioting and the Lunar Authority is overrun. Though not really ready to take over, the
revolutionaries form a government. Mike, posing to the unknowing masses as a
person through computer simulation as its head.

The
Lunar Authority, backed by all of Earth, attempts to take back the colony. An
invasion of Lunar Authority troops is beaten back. Next, a space war erupts.
The Lunar Colony for years has used giant catapults to launch payloads of grain
down to Earth (this is a real Engineering possibility, futurists and engineers
still foresee such catapults being used to send Lunar minerals to the Earth). When
hostilities break out, the Loonies use the catapults as weapons. They begin to
hurl huge cargo containers at the Earth. The impact of such objects hitting the
planet at enormous speed is equivalent to the detonation of a moderate size
nuclear weapon. Initially the containers are aimed at unpopulated areas and
bodies of water. But as Earth’s forces continue to attack the Colony with
nuclear missiles, the Loonies begin to hit targets closer and closer to cities.

The philosophy
expounded by Heinlein in this book is interesting but questionable for me. Heinlein
dubs it “Rational Anarchy” It is a form of Libertarianism and has certain limited
parallels with the ideology of Ayn Rand. In fact, at one point in the
narrative, Prof, who is Heinlein’s spokesperson for Rational Anarchy, states “I
could get along with a Randian” This sets off alarm bells with me. Living in
the United States of 2012, I believe that a branch of Libertarianism, partially
fueled by the writings of Rand has seized an enormous amount of power in
American government. Its fanatical adherents are continuing to do terrible damage
to the United States. For instance, they have for years successfully denied
health care to tens of millions of people, now threaten to wipe out much of the
American Retirement system in order to pay for tax reductions that are heavily skewed
to the wealthy, allow America’s infrastructure to rot and become obsolete, and foster
an entire host of additional maladies. Furthermore, having read Rand, I find
her to be a cold and mechanistic thinker who advocates what is ultimately a
simplistic and naive ideology. She spews personal venom at those who do not
share her philosophies. Case in point, The
Fountainhead contains a “Liberal” character, clearly meant to be an
archetype, that is cold, calculating and inhuman. I would argue that in
Heinlein’s case however, that while his belief system is just as unworkable as
Rand’s, his vision is much more humane, reasoned and thoughtful. He also shows
respect for those who do not agree with his beliefs. For instance, though best
described as a Social Democrat, Wyoh is portrayed as intelligent and honorable.

As
expressed by its fictional proponents as well as by the society portrayed in
the book, Rational Anarchy is strongly anti government, anti authority, and
anti any organization other than the family.

Rational
Anarchy is also pro - capitalist and free market. A controlling and overbearing Lunar Authority
is constantly oppressing The Loonies economic and work activities. Again and
again the Authority is portrayed as an inept and inefficient mess. provides
commentary indicating that such characteristics are true of all governments.

Heinlein
is no more forgiving of democracy as he is towards dictatorship. He portrays
the legislature elected by the newly independent Lunar Colony as composed of
fools who are unable to accomplish anything by themselves. Repeatedly, Prof is highly
critical of democratic systems. He observes that the masses can be easily
manipulated and that those of a minority opinion always rightfully feel disenfranchised.

Prof
labels government as a disease that humans cannot shake. If a government must
exist, he argues that it be small and be what he describes as “starved”. He
opposes all codified restrictions on individual rights and freedoms. He also argues
against all taxes and regulations.

Furthermore,
the belief system rejects any group morality, as when a person says that
“country X was wrong” “or country Y was right”. The professor states:

“In
terms of morals, there is no such thing as 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each
responsible for his own acts."

Heinlein’s
ideology places no responsibility for the individual to obey laws or rules
other then his or her own oral beliefs. Prof contends:

“I
am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate
them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that
I alone am morally responsible for everything I do”

The rational part of Rational
Anarchy comes in as the philosophy recognizes that this belief system will
never be universally accepted and its adherents must get along in a world where
they are a minority. In consequence, unlike Rand, Heinlein recognizes that
sometimes even the rules of the ideology need to be broken in order to make things
work in an imperfect world. Prof, who claims to be a vegetarian, exemplifies
this, as he occasionally eats meat and jokingly pretends it is a vegetable. Later,
he allows pro lunar independence propaganda to be spread by the revolutionary
government as a way to deal crises, though such propaganda is anathema to his
philosophy.

The benefits
of Rational Anarchism are illustrated in the society of Lunar Colony. While the
Lunar Authority is economically stifling, sometimes represses dissent, and controls
the “big picture” things, when it comes to day-to -day laws, it plays no part
in society. Therefore, Lunar society is without criminal or civil laws. The
result is a socially ideal place. The Loonies do not always act individually
with wisdom, but when you put everyone’s action together, the end result is a
model of an exceptional society.

There
is no civil law in a society with lots of commerce. Manny explains that if
anyone were to be foolish enough to break a contract, no one would ever do business
with that person again. This is a common train of reasoning that I often hear
from “no regulation” conservatives.

Criminal
law is simple. There are no written laws, police or professional judges. If someone violates another person or
property, or even behaves very obnoxiously, a local group apprehends them and
an ad hoc court forms, judge and jury are selected from the populace. The
accused is tried. Punishment ranges from a fine to execution. False accusations
are discouraged, as accusers who make false or frivolous claims are themselves
subject to punishment. Heinlein portrays this system as yielding a low crime, and
a highly civil society. Criminals are quickly executed or punished, as are the
aggressive and the extremely ill - mannered. Heinlein paints this system as not
being comprised of lynch mobs, but as working through common sense to provide
justice and tranquility. As a result people are all very polite and civil and
there is little crime.

This
free and open system also has greatly impacted gender and family relations on
Luna. Especially in the early days, men greatly outnumbered women. This numerical
imbalance gave women an enormous social advantage with men going to great lengths
to curry favor with them. To touch a woman without her consent can lead to
trial and severe punishment. Many marriages are polygamous where men outnumber
women. Often these relationships are well run matriarchies. Women are never
questioned when deciding to bring additional partners into any situation.

Once
again Heinlein portrays these arraignments constructed by people without the
influence of outside authority as working supremely well. Manny’s group
marriage is portrayed as a warm, family style relationship that provides
support and love to all of its spouses and children. It is well led by the
senior wife, however all members have a say in everything. The needs and
desires of all of its spouses are given consideration. It is self sufficient
and economically viable.

This
vision is different from Rand’s brand of elitist Libertarianism. Rand rails
against all collectivism and promotes individual genius and accomplishment as
the highest ideal. In her writings she expresses disgust for weakness and finds
compassion a contemptible emotion. In contrast Heinlein advocates for the beneficial
effects bestowed upon society when the masses are free to interact without the
influence of outside authority. He sees the good and bad combining to form a
beneficent and civil society that actually takes care of its weakest members.
His ideology is not based upon individual elitism but upon the collective
common wisdom and efficiency of society.

Though
slightly more sophisticated, and much more humane, than Rand, I think that
Heinlein’s ideology is also unrealistic and naive. History has shown that
societies without strong civil law systems never develop prosperity.
Economically viable societies that lose their civil law systems quickly fall
apart. It sounds good to say that no one will do business with a contract
breaker, but such people and organizations run rampant without civil authority.

As
for countries with no codified criminal law, history again proves that Heinlein
is sadly mistaken as to the results of such a system. I think such a place
would resemble Somalia of the last twenty years as opposed to the balanced
community that Heinlein envisions. As for the role of women in a culture where
they were greatly outnumbered amid no legal controls, I doubt that they would
fare anywhere near as well as Heinlein predicts.

Like
many Libertarian philosophies Heinlein focuses too much upon things that are
sometimes, but not always, true. By making overly simplistic generalizations he
distorts reality. Like many of his peers, Heinlein turns insight into dogma. Government
is often oppressive, wasteful and inefficient. But under the right conditions governments
have been a key component in human progress, prosperity and the propagation of
justice. They sometimes do things very right. Nations without government
safeguards have been characterized by ills such as brutal child labor, exploitation of the weak
by the strong, environmental
destruction, and a host of other evils.

I am
much more sympathetic to the personal aspects of “Rational Anarchy”. I believe
that a human being’s morality should never be subsumed by a group. Nothing is
justified only because the law says it is allowed. I agree that if one finds a
law or rule immoral, one should do one’s best to disobey it. “My country right
or wrong” is a completely untenable statement to me. I read this book when I
was young. Along with many other influences, this philosophic angle played a part
in helping me to form my beliefs.

I also
agree with view of civil liberties espoused by Libertarianism and Rational
Anarchy. I want government play as small a role as possible in our personal
lives. Thinkers like Rand and Heinlein have it exactly right when they advocate
against censorship and government interference in things like reproductive
rights, which genders should be allowed to marry, etc.

There
is lot more to this book then the advocacy of the philosophy of Rational Anarchism.
There are some interesting thoughts and analysis presented upon the nature of
revolutions in general. Heinlein also explores many aspects of consciousness as
Mike becomes a more and more rounded being. The book’s characters are
interesting and at times behave in surprising ways that give them a degree of
complexity. Finally this is fun science
fiction. The plot is engaging, the prose is cynical, witty and often humorous. Heinlein
has invented a fantastic Loonie slang that Manny uses. This vernacular is brilliant
yet at times hilarious. This is a very well rounded work.

The Moon
is a Harsh Mistress deserves its reputation as a work of classic science
fiction. In addition, for someone looking for a fictional philosophic story
that explores Libertarian beliefs, this is a much superior alternative to the
cold and ultimately juvenile novels of Rand. While I would describe Heinlein’s
belief system as sophomoric, it is far more nuanced and reasonable then Rand’s
mantra. It is also a much “warmer” book than is typical of her works. Heinlein
envisions a system where people look out for and take care of society and each
other without government intrusion. I think that Heinlein is off base; however,
his presentation is very well stated, respectable and interesting as compared
to those of some of his peers. He also carries the reader on a very interesting
and fun ride toward his flawed, final destination.

My comparison between this book and Jose Saramago's Baltasar and Blimunda can be found here.

13 comments:

I love Robert Heinlein but I have not yet read this title. I read Methuselah's Children a couple of years back and it was a very thought provoking novel about the problems of space exploration and it's inherent comparison to European colonialism.

Hi Ryan - I have not read "Methuselah's Children". When I was much younger I read a bunch of Heinlein;s Books,"Stranger in a Strange Land", "The Number of the Beast", "Glory Road", and what was I think the first science fiction novel that I ever read, "Orphans of the Sky'. He is usually very mentally stimulating.

I haven't read Heinlein yet but the compariosn to rand would ring an alarm bell as well. i wasn't aware of how problematic her books are until I read about her recently. I'm not keen on chunky books so it wasn't likely I would read her.I suppose some of the ideas Heinlein incrporated must have seemed more realistic at the time.t's interesting that some SF is dated while others will just endure and are timeless. I found the parallels you drew too rand very interesting.

I read this when I was a teenager. It was part of my Sci-fi period which I left far behind me. I don't really remember the political aspects of the book, to be honest. I've either forgotten or it didn't hit me at the time.

Like Caroline, Rand rings alarms. She did a lot much damage to people in the film industry in the 50s.

Hi Caroline - One aspect of Heinlein's predictions for the future is that he really tried to use established science and engineering concepts. I think that is one of the reasons that his work does not seem too dated.

If anyone HAD to read Rand I would recommend 'Anthem". It is short and not nearly as strident as her other books. I believe that in some ways it was influential on George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight - Four".

Hi Jennifer - I definitely agree about the perspective being new. As of late I have been going back and reading some books thatI originally read 25 - 35years ago I believe had some impact on my lifetime thoughts and philosophies. This makes change in viewpoints doubly interesting .

This is such a beautifully written and anlytical review, Brian! It sounds like a dissertation, and I LOVE it!! It's brilliant!!

I greatly enjoyed reading your thoughts on the philosophy espoused by Heinlein in this novel. The only Heinlein novel I've read is "Stranger In A Strange Land", which I really should re-visit, since I don't remember much of the plot. I read it several years ago.

Along with Asimov, Heinlein is one of the giants of science fiction. I really should plan to read more of his work, perhaps starting with this one, which sounds absolutely fascinating!!

I agree with you about Rand. I started reading "The Fountainhead" years ago, and couldn't finish it. I didn't like her coldness, or her contempt for those she deems inferior. Roark, her main character, is practically a megalomaniac; at least, that's what I remember. Rand's philosophy of Objectivism does have some good points, but again, there's that exaggerated slant toward the glories of individualism at the expense of a social conscience. Besides, I have a major complaint about her -- she had an ongoing affair with her staunchest disciple for many years. His name is Nathaniel Branden, and he was many years her junior. Both Rand and Branden were married to other people during their affair. (Naturally, I dislike Branden as well.)

Your superb review has really piqued my curiosity about this novel!! I'm also thinking of going back to "The Fountainhead", believe it or not, just so I can compare the philosophies.

In closing, let me tell you that I am a HUGE fan of "meaty" reviews and posts such as this one, so keep 'em coming!! Thanks for this one!!! : )

P.S. Branden is now a well-known psychotherapist, with several books to his credit. In spite of the fact that I dislike him as a person, I have read one of his books, "Honoring the Self", which does make many valid and helpful points. However, the affair with Rand still remains a major sticking point for me.

Another important book written by Branden is "The Psychology of Self-Esteem", which I have dipped into occasionally, but haven't actually read.

I read "The Fountainhead" a few years ago. One thing that I find disturbing about Rand is the way that she expressed such a lack of regard for those members of society that she deemed to be weak.

i totally agree that her philosophy had some good points, especially her views on personal liberty.

I have not read Branden but his titles sound very interesting. I have heard the affair was between the two was conducted after Rand and Branden had bullied their respective spouses into accepting the arraignment. Go figure!

Thanks again Maria - The thing about the blog is that I really like to share the ideas that I derive from the books that read. I really appreciate the comments for many reasons, in particular it allows others to bounce ideas back.